Search LinkedIn Companies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning 'visible' results, filter-control name resolution, and the one-cursor-page return behavior, which are not deducible from annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes: scope, name/ID resolution behavior, and pagination. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (nested filters, 7 params) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation: filter surface, pagination, and name/ID behavior. Minor omissions like rate limits or result ordering do not detract from usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover individual parameters, but the description clarifies the important distinction between human-readable names (resolved via filter UI) and stable facet IDs, which is not fully explicit in the schema. This adds meaningful guidance despite the low schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Search') and resource ('visible LinkedIn Company results') and details the full filter surface, clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like people.search or jobs.search. The scope is explicit and non-tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when a filtered company search is needed, including the option to use names or stable facet IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.